United States v. Jose Castro-Villalobos , 394 F. App'x 841 ( 2010 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-3945
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSE LUIS CASTRO-VILLALOBOS,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Criminal No. 1-09-cr-00032-001)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 16, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 17, 2010)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Jose Luis Castro-Villalobos appeals his sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment for
illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. After pleading
guilty, Castro-Villalobos’ guideline sentencing range was 46 to 57 months. Castro-
Villalobos contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because of its
severity. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We will affirm.
Because we write for the parties who are familiar with the factual context and
procedural history of this case, we recite only the facts that are relevant to our analysis.
Castro-Villalobos is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without permission
and was deported in 1999 after being convicted of assault in 1995. At some point prior to
2008, Castro-Villalobos reentered the United States without permission. In 2008, he was
convicted of assault in Delaware.
Castro-Villalobos asked the District Court to sentence him “as low as possible” so
that he could return to his wife and two young children in Mexico. Appellant’s Br. 7. He
explained that he returned to the United States to earn money to pay for medical bills
related to his wife’s pregnancy. On appeal, Castro-Villalobos merely asserts that “[g]iven
these circumstances, a sentence of 46 months imprisonment was unreasonably severe.” Id.We review the District Court’s sentencing for reasonableness based on the totality
of the circumstances, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We defer to the District Court’s application of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and determination of an appropriate sentence. United States v. Ausburn,
502 F.3d 313, 329 (3d Cir. 2007). Here, the District Court engaged in a proper analysis
of the § 3553(a) factors and reached a reasonable sentence. Castro-Villalobos does not
2
present any evidence or argument from which we could conclude that the District Court
abused its discretion by imposing the sentence that it did, at the lowest end of the
guideline range.
For the foregoing reasons we will AFFIRM the Judgment and Commitment Order
of the District Court.
3